Badges

Link to me

Feedjit

Search WyBlog

The Party of "No"

Technorati and Me

Technorati is indexing me again! They had to make a code change to fix
the problem with my blog getting stuck in their queue. Kudos to Eric M.
and the guys at
GetSatisfaction.com
where they have "community powered support for Technorati".

Well, they're "sorta, kinda" indexing me anyway. It's on a 24 hour tape
delay or something. So I never get picked up by Memeorandum because they
pull from Technorati and Technorati has stuff I posted yesterday
listed as my latest blog entry. And that's old news to Memeorandum.

Wankers.

Fair Use Notice

"This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in
an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social issues, etc. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for
research and educational purposes."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

Apparently in the original text there's a heretofore undiscovered asterisk
or two.

Because homosexuality is our de facto national religion now.

And if its proponents have their way, the free exercise of religions which
object to homosexuality will indeed be prohibited. (Except for Islam;
the homofascists don't dare take on The Religion Of Peace™.)

There are two news items today which exhibit my thesis.

In Virginia, a federal judge has
invalidated a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex "marriage."

Because obviously (a) the Fourteenth Amendment was intended for such a purpose,
and (b) never mind the will of voters expressed in a referendum.

The ruling cites memorable Supreme Court travesties — Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. U.S.
— like so many mileposts on the Highway to Hell, and who can argue with
such sophistry when it's dressed up in costumes of legal precedent, bejeweled
with a lot of emotional chatter about "loving, intimate and lasting
relationships" and "sacred, personal choices"?

The sinful is now sacred? How's that for peeing on us Christians'
cornflakes?

Try your schtick in a mosque and get back to me. That is, if your head is
still attached to your body.

A House bill directed at same-sex couples in Kansas who are denied services
tied to weddings and civil unions passed Wednesday with Republicans arguing
the measure reinforced religious freedom and Democrats labeling it a
discriminatory assault on lesbians and gays.

Why is it that homosexual demands for special attention are never characterized
as a discriminatory assault on religious liberty?

The GOP-led House voted 72-49 to approve House Bill 2453 with little commentary
following lengthy debate Tuesday. The bill sent to the Senate was designed to
shield people, groups and businesses that cite religious reasons for refusing
to serve homosexuals engaging in activities viewed as religiously offensive.

Note that it doesn't say you can't do it. It just says we don't have to help
you.

The bill allows government employees of the state, courts, schools and law
enforcement agencies to treat as invalid the civil unions or marriages of
two men or two women.

Go ahead, pretend to be "married." We're still not going to applaud.

Legislators supportive of the legislation were motivated by an assumption the
federal courts eventually would declare unconstitutional a 2005 amendment to
the Kansas Constitution banning gay marriage.

Wouldn't it be great if all these judges who are mesmerized by emanations
of penumbras would actually read the
Tenth Amendment?

Gov. Sam Brownback said when asked about the bill that he had dedicated himself
to fighting for basic human rights, including religious liberty, in many
countries and for many different faiths.

"Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their
religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect
and dignity," the Republican governor said.

The homosexuals demand respect from us. But they refuse to respect our beliefs
in return. Their disdain for religion pours forth — we are
"anti-gay" purveyors of
"vicious discrimination" out to turn back the clock on civil rights.

Such hysteria is underwhelming. The oft-cited example of homofascism at its
worst is the Colorado baker who politely refuse to participate in the charade
of a same-sex "marriage." Adhering to his conscience was quickly redefined as
"hate." As if a random sole proprietor has the power to prevent two homosexuals
from fully enjoying their chosen lifestyle.

This notion that a business has to cater to every customer's whim is
preposterous. Several years ago my daughter wanted a Club Penguin birthday
cake. We went to arguably the best bakery in town. "Sorry," he said, "I
can't make that."

You'll be shocked to learn we didn't sue him.

And I'll bet you can't guess that we found a different bakery willing to
create the cake she wanted.

Kansas isn't saying you can't have your cake. Kansas is saying that you
might need to find a bakery that wants to make it for you. Then, everybody's
happy. The religious baker's conscience is clear. The guy who made your
cake has a few extra bucks in his pocket. And contrary to hyperbole, you
have your cake.